Williams v. Drew et al
ORDER ACCEPTING 52 Report and Recommendations; 56 Motion to Strike filed by Glenn L Williams is now MOOT; 49 Motion to Amend/Correct filed by Glenn L Williams is GRANTED as to the dismissal of defendant DelRe and DENIED as to the addition of Officer Hayes as a defendant. Signed by Honorable Terry L Wooten on 5/13/2011. (mbro, )
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA
Glenn L. Williams,
Darlene Drew, Warden at FCI
Bennettsville, and DelRe, Captain
at FCI Bennettsville,
Civil Action No.: 6:10-cv-2231-TLW-KFM
The plaintiff, Glenn L. Williams (“plaintiff”), brought this civil action, pro se, on August 26,
2010. (Doc. # 1). The plaintiff filed an amended complaint on November 8, 2010, amending his
sixth cause of action for retaliation/discrimination. (Doc. # 32). On December 17, 2010, the
defendants filed a motion to dismiss. (Doc. # 44). On December 21, 2010, the plaintiff filed a
motion to amend/correct the amended complaint. (Doc. # 49).
This matter now comes before this Court for review of the Report and Recommendation (“the
Report”) filed by United States Magistrate Judge Kevin F. McDonald to whom this case had
previously been assigned. (Doc. # 52). In the Report, the Magistrate Judge recommends that the
District Court grant the plaintiff’s motion to amend the complaint as to the dismissal of defendant
DelRe and deny it as to the addition of Officer Hayes as a defendant. (Doc. # 52). The plaintiff filed
objections to the Report and a motion to strike section II of his objections to the Report. (Docs. 54,
56). In conducting this review, the Court applies the following standard:
The magistrate judge makes only a recommendation to the Court, to which any party
may file written objections . . . . The Court is not bound by the recommendation of
the magistrate judge but, instead, retains responsibility for the final determination.
The Court is required to make a de novo determination of those portions of the report
or specified findings or recommendation as to which an objection is made. However,
the Court is not required to review, under a de novo or any other standard, the factual
or legal conclusions of the magistrate judge as to those portions of the Report and
Recommendation to which no objections are addressed. While the level of scrutiny
entailed by the Court’s review of the Report thus depends on whether or not
objections have been filed, in either case, the Court is free, after review, to accept,
reject, or modify any of the magistrate judge’s findings or recommendations.
Wallace v. Housing Auth. of the City of Columbia, 791 F. Supp. 137, 138 (D.S.C. 1992) (citations
In light of the standard set forth in Wallace, the Court has reviewed, de novo, the Report and
the objections. After careful review of the Report and objections thereto, the Court ACCEPTS the
Report. (Doc. # 52). Therefore, for the reasons articulated by the Magistrate Judge, the plaintiff’s
motion to amend/correct the amended complaint (Doc. # 49) is GRANTED as to the dismissal of
defendant DelRe and DENIED as to the addition of Officer Hayes as a defendant. In light of this
ruling, the plaintiff’s motion to strike section II of his objections to the Report (Doc. # 56) is now
IT IS SO ORDERED.
s/Terry L. Wooten
United States District Judge
May 13, 2011
Florence, South Carolina
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?